On 6 Apr 2009 22:43:03 -0700, Timothy Sipples wrote: >No, it's not at all misleading (CA's prediction that 2009 shipped >incremental mainframe MIPS will exceed all installed mainframe MIPS in >2000)... > >Thus "MIPS," at least in this context, is an entirely legitimate and proper >way to view mainframe growth. It's not the *only* way, but it has ample >validity. MIPS sales are extremely highly correlated with actual business >use. > >Your desktop PC (or laptop) is entirely different...
Why do mainframe folks keep comparing mainframes with desktop PCs? (Why is it that z/mainframe people never seem to compare their systems to something like an IBM x3950, or an HP ProLiant ML350/370???) I don't know if the statistics are available, but if you were to limit the set of Intel-based processors to *server* class systems and Intel-based members of the "Top 500 Supercomputer" list, I'd be willing to bet some money that CA's prediction would still be true: that all Intel MIPS shipped in 2009 in that category exceeded all installed MIPS in that category in 2000. (Can we agree that the set of systems I've described probably spend much less time idling than the typical desktop PC?) Eric -- Eric Chevalier E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.tulsagrammer.com Is that call really worth your child's life? HANG UP AND DRIVE! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
